Q3 Bonus Reduction

Quote
anonymous said:
What some of us aren’t understanding is that this adjustment was due to us growing more MS than we did scripts, which are what actually generate revenue. Keep complaining and acting like something was stolen from you and we will start getting bonus based on TRx growth. Trust me, none of us want that.
Click to expand...

Moving over to a bonus structure based off revenue growth per QTR is ideal, UCB does this. This would incentivize reps to chase after commercial prescriptions. This is important to the company since Commercial Scripts generate almost 70% more revenue than Medicaid prescriptions. In return this would also neutralize the advantage that some reps have in certain pockets throughout the nation that have Medicaid coverage.

No matter if Supernus makes any changes to the bonus policy or not, just keep your word. Really that is the most important thing to us reps.
 






anonymous said:
Moving over to a bonus structure based off revenue growth per QTR is ideal, UCB does this. This would incentivize reps to chase after commercial prescriptions. This is important to the company since Commercial Scripts generate almost 70% more revenue than Medicaid prescriptions. In return this would also neutralize the advantage that some reps have in certain pockets throughout the nation that have Medicaid coverage.

No matter if Supernus makes any changes to the bonus policy or not, just keep your word. Really that is the most important thing to us reps.
Click to expand...

I follow to some some degree. At some point we’ve all benefited from a quarter or two where market conditions made market share growth look better than our actual products Rx growth(Q3 being the first it’s been wide spread and they called us on it).

The UCB comparison isn’t quite apples to apples. While we know our products can deliver better clinical results than theirs, they still have the advantage of legacy name recognition and veteran reps with established relationships.

As far as the revenue share bonus, I understand commercial patients have a higher profit margin per script. However, we do well now by incentivizing to go after all Rx’s bc the last thing we want is reps in well covered Medicaid states not promoting for those patients bc they think they will make more off of commercial payers. In that situation we miss out on scripts and underserve patients. That’s just not ethical or good business.
 






We can show better results clinically than UCB??? Since when? First of all, there are no head to head studies, obviously, and even the one we often cite to show how well tolerated OXR is (actually OXC) doesn’t include Vimpat or Briviact.

So how can we show CLINICALLY better results? By comparing our data? Which data would that be? The original phase three data (global)? The posthoc data minus the European subset? The data from the open label extension trial which doctors often dismiss altogether as you have already eliminated many of the patients who haven’t seen efficacy or tolerability? Thank god we haven’t done a retrospective review or “pragmatic assessment” on OXR since that would only further cloud the waters (don’t even get me started on how sketchy our data is on TXR and migraine reduction!), because that is almost laughable in most doctors’ opinions.

We chop the data in whatever way suits our need, and if our data isn’t necessarily that great, we just use regular OXC data instead. If you look at our initial Phase 3 results and compare them to UCB’s products, OXR is comparable at best.
 












anonymous said:
I follow to some some degree. At some point we’ve all benefited from a quarter or two where market conditions made market share growth look better than our actual products Rx growth(Q3 being the first it’s been wide spread and they called us on it).

The UCB comparison isn’t quite apples to apples. While we know our products can deliver better clinical results than theirs, they still have the advantage of legacy name recognition and veteran reps with established relationships.

As far as the revenue share bonus, I understand commercial patients have a higher profit margin per script. However, we do well now by incentivizing to go after all Rx’s bc the last thing we want is reps in well covered Medicaid states not promoting for those patients bc they think they will make more off of commercial payers. In that situation we miss out on scripts and underserve patients. That’s just not ethical or good business.
Click to expand...

The main thing I want you to take from my original post is to set a bonus plan and uphold it.
 












Listen people, the culture has changed. Time to move on. I’m looking for a new job, as are others I know, mainly because my connection to Supernus has soured and I’ll never look at it the same. I won’t be happy here. I’m not going to quit until I have another job. They get it that we’re pissed but they’ve made it clear that they don’t care. So that’s corporate America for you. Time to move on from this piss fest
 












Top Bottom
Back
Quote